2011
DOI: 10.1364/ao.50.002572
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phase error compensation for three-dimensional shape measurement with projector defocusing

Abstract: This paper analyzes the phase error for a three-dimensional (3D) shape measurement system that utilizes our recently proposed projector defocusing technique. This technique generates seemingly sinusoidal structured patterns by defocusing binary structured patterns and then uses these patterns to perform 3D shape measurement by fringe analysis. However, significant errors may still exist if an object is within a certain depth range, where the defocused fringe patterns retain binary structure. In this research, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
70
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 121 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to the method of Su et al using a Ronchi grating [3], this approach strives to generate ideal sinusoidal fringe patterns by defocusing binary structured ones. However, compared to the conventional sinusoidal fringe generation technique, this technique has two major shortcomings: a smaller depthmeasurement range [4] and the difficulty of calibrating the defocused projector [2].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similar to the method of Su et al using a Ronchi grating [3], this approach strives to generate ideal sinusoidal fringe patterns by defocusing binary structured ones. However, compared to the conventional sinusoidal fringe generation technique, this technique has two major shortcomings: a smaller depthmeasurement range [4] and the difficulty of calibrating the defocused projector [2].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It clearly shows binary structures. The phase errors of the different algorithms, computed as in [4], are plotted in Figure 2 shows the measurement results. This experiment indicates that, when the projector is nearly focused, the seven-and nine-step algorithms yield the most accurate results, while the four-step algorithm yields the least accurate results.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The narrower phase maps are unwrapped with the assistance of the phase from the largest fringe period using a temporal phaseunwrapping algorithm. To convert the unwrapped phase to depth, we used a simple phase-to-height conversion algorithm described in [14]. It is well known that when fringe stripes are wide, the random noise is very large, and with the fringe period decreasing, the quality of the 3D results becomes better.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For a simple reference-plane-based calibration method, the relationship between the depth z and the phase difference is z z 0 c × ΔΦ [12]; here, z 0 is the constant shift and c is the calibration constant. Therefore, the depth error caused by system noise is approximately Δz e c × δΦ e .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4(e) clearly shows the highly detailed features on the difference map when the fringe patterns use the optimal fringe angle. We further convert phase difference maps to depth maps using the simple phaseto-height conversion algorithm discussed in [12]. The depth scaling coefficient was obtained using the optimal fringe angle, and applied to both phase difference maps.…”
Section: (B) and 2(e)mentioning
confidence: 99%